Community suitability of Sonora, Mexico
Marginally suitable confidence B · live score 60
79
best land · p90
82%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Legal & sovereignty 52
Governance, safety & tenure 39
Economy & cost 86
Society, freedom & health 100
Land & water 73
Climate, growing & hazards 65
Autonomy & access 37
Where it pushes back
Food & forage diversityAccessibilityLand tenure security
Within Sonora — 75 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Etchojoa
strongest Society, freedom & health (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (39)
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Huatabampo
strongest Society, freedom & health (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (39)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 68
Naco
strongest Society, freedom & health (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (39)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 68
Nogales
strongest Society, freedom & health (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (39)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 68
Imuris
strongest Society, freedom & health (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (39)
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 67
Navojoa
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 67
Santa Cruz
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 67
Cananea
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 66
Magdalena
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 66
Bacum
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 65
San Miguel De Horcasitas
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 65
Agua Prieta
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 64
Atil
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 64
Benjamin Hill
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 64
Carbo
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 64
Empalme
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 64
Santa Ana
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 64
Saric
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 64
Cajeme
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 63
Fronteras
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 63
Guaymas
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 63
Oquitoa
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 63
Ures
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 63
Hermosillo
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 62
Baviacora
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 61
Mazatan
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 61
Quiriego
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 61
Trincheras
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 61
Tubutama
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 61
Alamos
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Caborca
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 60
La Colorada
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 60
Rayon
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 60
Aconchi
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 59
Altar
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 59
Bacoachi
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 59
Nacozari De Garcia
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 59
Opodepe
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 59
Yecora
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 59
Cucurpe
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 58
Cumpas
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 58
Moctezuma
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 58
San Javier
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 58
Villas Pesqueira
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 58
Granados
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 57
Isla
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Marginally suitable 57
Onavas
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 57
Puerto Penasco
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 57
Rosario
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 57
San Felipe De Jesus
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 57
Huasabas
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 56
Huepac
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 56
Villa Hidalgo
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 56
Arivechi
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 55
Arizpe
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 55
Bacanora
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 55
Banamichi
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 55
Huachinera
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 55
Suaqui Grande
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 55
Bacadehuachi
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 54
Bavispe
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 54
Divisadero
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 54
Soyopa
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 54
Tepache
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 54
Nacori Chico
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 53
Pitiquito
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 53
San Pedro De La Cueva
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 53
Bacerac
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 52
Isla Lobos
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 52
Sahuaripa
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 52
San Luis Rio Colorado
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 52
Isla Tiburon
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 51
Isla San Esteban
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 48
excluded excl
excluded excl
Reading the land, criterion by criterion
Each signal names the open dataset behind it and how measured it is.
Legal entity & land frameworkcountry B OECD FDI RRI + manual
Education & schooling freedomcountry B HSLDA + UNESCO UIS
Seed & agricultural autonomycountry C UPOV membership proxy
Governance & corruptioncountry A World Bank WGI + Transparency CPI
Land tenure securitycountry A IPRI (de jure) + Prindex (de facto)
Business & economic viabilitycountry A World Bank B-READY, Heritage, Fraser
Cost of living, labour & landcountry A World Bank PPP, ILOSTAT
Monetary & capital sovereigntycountry A IMF/World Bank, Chinn-Ito
Personal freedomcountry A Cato/Fraser Human Freedom Index
Disease / vector burden A Malaria Atlas + dengue Index P
Soil quality A SoilGrids (ISRIC)
Water availability & quality A WRI Aqueduct + AQUASTAT
Terrain & buildability A SRTM / NASADEM
Land cover & degradation A ESA WorldCover + Global Forest Watch
Biodiversity & alignment B Biodiversity Intactness Index
Climate & natural hazards A ThinkHazard + NASA FIRMS + USGS
Growing conditions A CHELSA / FAO GAEZ
Food & forage diversity B FAO GAEZ crop suitability + GLW
Coastal risk B Climate Central CoastalDEM
Energy potential A Global Solar Atlas + Global Wind Atlas
Natural building materials B SoilGrids clay + forest + geology
Environmental quality A SEDAC PM2.5 + VIIRS night-lights
Accessibility A Malaria Atlas friction surface
Remoteness / surroundings A GPWv4 population density
Contamination legacy C Maus mining polygons + WRI power plants
Phase-1 desk screening
These are desk numbers from open data. Soil tests, water rights and the welcome of actual neighbours all wait for a visit — we'd rather say so than pretend.
Other regions in Mexico
Compare nearby options, ranked by overall suitability.